Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC
"YangGL" <iamyanggl@gmail.com> Fri, 10 September 2010 15:39 UTC
Return-Path: <iamyanggl@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 823B83A6835; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.306
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.306 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.145, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RG833pmTIAjp; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 740FE3A68D7; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pwi1 with SMTP id 1so1335310pwi.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:cc:references :in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; bh=exNyl1I1J6fAYbkjB1/Dlkb67sfWVvdNdppKOSYSwtA=; b=Bse7EgntCWUpGOEx/kRWddAsc6VjkIeAydOqvMElFJ8Bl8VAVfPqz5C+I9iEiwASXC 91aTzDrpcctvkxe2v9QXJbB4s9FIjcJw9DH1hEB5TXOgCKuf4cRwr0Q4XhHQcVZY6/6Y U4VlcaS9N/r88VhLNSviMlXtlsFLMy4iNNh00=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer :thread-index:content-language; b=hGWOhOfHK/P4RflYDyomigDy7dGcFVDtD5XhNc7gyb+1I7Maq9CZYuvTn15lvygtM7 jrQ/gj5fJQIqdW5/M6ExdopWe8odIc8HPkZGkgwE3VPCFNV1NFBoBrye1DDA/p7UiAOX w7YXwXK7oJDbHYVpiYGf48nBsY2Dqg86Nj4Uo=
Received: by 10.114.89.11 with SMTP id m11mr1115545wab.23.1284133191084; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LocalHost ([113.112.196.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o17sm4729865wal.9.2010.09.10.08.39.42 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: YangGL <iamyanggl@gmail.com>
To: 'Xing Li' <xing@cernet.edu.cn>
References: <AANLkTim8kzSA8pKazc8u_w4C6j=y5bc-uArMWZaH9Nbm@mail.gmail.com> <C89A9B64.30FA2%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com> <002a01cb4712$d9f72fb0$8de58f10$@com> <B7569879-BD21-48EF-B411-BC99FAA48A22@cisco.com> <006c01cb4a81$ed53cd80$c7fb6880$@com> <7C56CE35-9D5A-4D29-823B-95CF8ADDA105@cisco.com> <002301cb4b0b$b3dab750$1b9025f0$@com> <4C8A384A.803@cernet.edu.cn>
In-Reply-To: <4C8A384A.803@cernet.edu.cn>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:39:40 +0800
Message-ID: <001401cb50fe$68c75400$3a55fc00$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: ActQ75XAkaVKSR05SKme2g21JJMRfQADZzig
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 13:39:33 -0700
Cc: 'Behave WG' <behave@ietf.org>, 'huang cancan' <cancanhuang110@gmail.com>, 'Fred Baker' <fred@cisco.com>, "'Yiu L. Lee'" <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>, 'IPv6 v6ops' <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, v4tov6transition@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:39:31 -0000
Sure, dIVI does not require ALG, because it work like a tunnel technology in the scenarios of IPv4-IPv6-IPv4. Hosts in the dIVI scenarios are also dual-stack, not IPv6-only. Best regards, Yang Guoliang -----Original Message----- From: Xing Li [mailto:xing@cernet.edu.cn] Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 9:53 PM To: YangGL Cc: 'Fred Baker'; 'Behave WG'; 'huang cancan'; 'Yiu L. Lee'; 'IPv6 v6ops'; v4tov6transition@ietf.org Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC YangGL 写道: > Sorry, please let me emphasize my point again: I tested a deprecated NAT-PT > not because there isn't any stateless or stateful implementation (I know > about IVI). Reasons are as below: > 1. On the basis of theoretical analysis, IPv4 address embedded in payload is > a big problem to all kind of v6-v4 translation. At this point, I think there > is no big difference between NAT-PT and later technology. > IVI requires ALG, but dIVI (double IVI) does not require ALG. xing > 2. There is a Juniper firewall in my lab, it can support NAT-PT. So I can > carry on easily. > I don't want to argue again. Since many people question my test result, I am > going to do it again, welcome everybody to work with us, and Fred, please > give me the typical product list. > Please notice that the next test isn't an authentication entering China > telecom's network, just for study. > > > Best regards, > Yang Guoliang > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 1:14 AM > To: YangGL > Cc: Yiu L. Lee; huang cancan; IPv6 v6ops; v4tov6transition@ietf.org; Kurt > Erik Lindqvist; Behave WG > Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC > > So you tested one implementation, one that uses a technology that the IETF > has deprecated (NAT-PT), and did not test the technology that has been > discussed in the behave working group under the name NAT64 (which is also a > stateful model). On the basis of testing one vendor's implementation of the > deprecated procedure, you assert that there is no implementation of the > behave technology that uses the stateless mode, and the stateful mode of the > behave technology that you didn't test either "doesn't work". > > Did I get that right? > > On Sep 2, 2010, at 2:33 AM, YangGL wrote: > > >> Hi Fred, >> The device in my NAT64 tests was NAT-PT from Juniper, it is stateful. >> Based on my knowledge of IPv4/IPv6 translation, the major differences >> > between stateful and stateless are bidirection and scalability. There are > similar impact to applications. My test goal is finding out the impact to > applications caused by IPv4/IPv6 translation, not whether a specific > translator work well. So I didn't test more products, also didn't run two > modes. > >> There are two major reasons for failure in my tests: >> 1. The protocols can't work with IPv4/IPv6 translator, such as IM and P2P. >> > There are IPv4 addresses embedded in payload, NAT-PT can't translate. > >> 2. The application programs are not designed for IPv6, such as some kind >> > of WEB browsers and Email clients. These programs can't work on the OS > without IPv4 address. > >> So far I cannot find a stateless/stateful solution to solve the problems >> > as above. > >> Best regards, >> Yang Guoliang >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] >> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 2:09 PM >> To: YangGL >> Cc: Yiu L. Lee; huang cancan; IPv6 v6ops; v4tov6transition@ietf.org; Kurt >> > Erik Lindqvist; Behave WG > >> Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines >> > WGLC > >> </chair> <!-- v6ops --> >> <author> <!-- draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate --> >> >> May I ask a question? >> >> When you say you tested it with NAT64, what did you test with? >> >> There are two modes for translation between IPv4 and IPv6. The stateful >> > mode, described in draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful, is essentially > identical in function to IPv4/IPv4 NAT, and allows IPv6 systems to connect > to IPv4 systems but not the reverse. The stateless mode, described in > draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate, allows connections to be initiated in either > direction. The downside of the stateless mode is that it requires a direct > mapping between an IPv4 and an IPv6 address. The are two parts of a common > framework, use the same addressing plan, and the same DNS extension. > >> Are you running both modes, or only the stateful mode? If you are only >> > running the stateful mode, that what you're reporting is what we have been > saying for some time it will behave like. > >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-address-format >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-address-format >> "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", Congxiao Bao, Christian >> Huitema, Marcelo Bagnulo, Mohammed Boucadair, Xing Li, 15-Aug-10, >> <draft-ietf-behave-address-format-10.txt> >> >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-dns64 >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-dns64 >> "DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6 Clients >> to IPv4 Servers", Marcelo Bagnulo, Andrew Sullivan, Philip Matthews, >> Iljitsch van Beijnum, 5-Jul-10, <draft-ietf-behave-dns64-10.txt> >> >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework >> "Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation", Fred Baker, Xing Li, Congxiao >> Bao, Kevin Yin, 17-Aug-10, <draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-10.txt> >> >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate >> "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", Xing Li, Congxiao Bao, Fred Baker, >> 22-Aug-10, <draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-22.txt> >> >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful >> "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 >> Clients to IPv4 Servers", Marcelo Bagnulo, Philip Matthews, Iljitsch van >> Beijnum, 12-Jul-10, <draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-12.txt> >> >> >> On Aug 28, 2010, at 5:40 PM, YangGL wrote: >> >> >>> Tests in my lab have proved that many popular applications cannot work on >>> > IPv6-only network with NAT64, such as IM, P2P, games, and part of video. WEB > and part of mail (Outlook and Outlook express) are the only applications we > can find working properly with NAT64. But there are more than 50% traffic is > P2P, WEB traffic is less than 20% on CT’s network. I think it is not a good > news to NAT64. > >>> Tests also prove that almost all of popular applications on Internet can >>> > work on IPv4-only network with single level and double level NAT44, such as > WEB, mail, IM, P2P, games, video and etc. > >>> NAT64 and NAT44 are similar in theory. But what make the difference of >>> > application support? I think it should be timing. NAT44 appears ten years > ago. There are a few applications on internet at that time. Subsequent > applications, such as IM, P2P, were designed to work with NAT44. NAT64 come > after this popular applications, situation is totally different. If NAT64 is > deployed on commercial network now, CT’s network traffic will cut down 70% > immediately, and most applications will release a new version for IPv6-only > or NAT64 in the next one year. But it is not a good idea to providers. > >>> Best regards, >>> Yang Guoliang >>> >>> 发件人: v4tov6transition-bounces@ietf.org >>> > [mailto:v4tov6transition-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Yiu L. Lee > >>> 发送时间: 2010年8月25日 22:05 >>> 收件人: huang cancan >>> 抄送: Kurt Erik Lindqvist; IPv6 v6ops; v4tov6transition@ietf.org >>> 主题: Re: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC >>> >>> From user’s perspective, do they care IPv4 or IPv6? Most don’t. For >>> > example: a casual web user wants to access his/her favorite IPv4-only > website. If his web client and PC support IPv6 and on an IPv6-only network > with NAT64, the web traffic will go through the NAT once. If his web client > and PC support IPv4-only on an IPv4 network with NAT444, the web traffic > will go through the NAT twice. In the end, he/she still gets the same > content. From this perspective, both experience “could be” very similar. > >>> However, this use case is rather limited and not applicable to many >>> > applications. This is why I said “could be”. Also, both Cameron and I > agree that this is easier to implement IPv6-only on mobile network than on > fixed network because mobile operators have more control over the devices > and apps. IMHO, it will take longer time for fixed network operators to > support NAT64 only solution in the network. > >>> On 8/25/10 9:41 AM, "huang cancan" <cancanhuang110@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> well, I mean: why customer experience of IPv4-only + NAT444 could be the >>> > same as IPv6-only + NAT64? > >>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Yiu L. Lee <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com> >>> > wrote: > >>> In order to deploy IPv6-only + NAT64, the client and network must talk >>> > IPv6. It also requires DNS64. These requirements are not needed for > IPv4-only + NAT444. From the deployment point of view, they are very > different technologies. > >>> >>> On 8/25/10 7:13 AM, "huang cancan" <cancanhuang110@gmail.com >>> > <http://cancanhuang110@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> hi,Yiu: >>> As you mentioned below: >>> >>>> All I am saying is the customer >>>> experience of IPv4-only + NAT444 could be the same as IPv6-only + NAT64, >>>> > but > >>>> the technologies and plan to offer these service are very different. >>>> >>> Do you have any test data to support this conclusion? >>> >>> Can-can Huang >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Yiu L. Lee <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com >>> > <http://yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com> > wrote: > >>>> Agreed. The 2x cost is really just the packet core ... which is of >>>> course a lot of money to double for no tangible benefit ..... talk >>>> about no business case .... And, still have numbering issues, customer >>>> experience is the same as IPv4-only + NAT44 and approximately the same >>>> as IPv6-only + NAT64 >>>> >>>> >>> Life cycle of mobile equipments could be every 2-3 years, but life cycle >>> > of > >>> consumer electronics could be 5+ years. Consider many large TVs with >>> Internet service selling today are still running IPv4-only, fixed line >>> operators must prepare to support them in foreseeable future. >>> >>> That said, I am not saying an operator must build a dual-stack core >>> > network, > >>> there are technologies such as DS-lite and Softwire Mesh available to run >>> > a > >>> pure IPv6 core network with dual-stack edge. All I am saying is the >>> > customer > >>> experience of IPv4-only + NAT444 could be the same as IPv6-only + NAT64, >>> > but > >>> the technologies and plan to offer these service are very different. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> v4tov6transition mailing list >>> v4tov6transition@ietf.org <http://v4tov6transition@ietf.org> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> v4tov6transition mailing list >>> v4tov6transition@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Behave mailing list > Behave@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave >
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Fred Baker
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… huang cancan
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… huang cancan
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Tina TSOU
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… YangGL
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… huang cancan
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Fred Baker
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Gert Doering
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… YangGL
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Fred Baker
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Pekka Savola
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Gert Doering
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Tina TSOU
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Tina TSOU
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Tina TSOU
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Christopher Morrow
- [BEHAVE] Comment on draft-lee-v4v6tran-problem-00… Tina TSOU
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Tina TSOU
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Tina TSOU
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Christopher Morrow
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… YangGL
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… YangGL
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Cameron Byrne
- [BEHAVE] DS hosts & DS networks - need for a more… Rémi Després
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Christopher Morrow
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Xing Li
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Xing Li
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… YangGL
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… YangGL
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Xing Li
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… Xing Li
- Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-… YangGL